HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Dalmia Dadri Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax
Civil Appeal 230 of 1954; Petition 276 of 1953
[1959] SCR 729 ·
Patiala and East Punjab States Union Administration Ordinance I of S. 2005, section 3 · Patiala Income-tax Act S. 2001 · Indian Income-tax Act 1922, section 66 · Constitution Articles 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g), 32
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
5-judge bench · S. R. Das C.J. · T. L. Venkatarama Aiyar · S. K. Das · P. B. Gajendragadkar · Vivian Bose
Assessment years: 1949–50, 1950–51, 1951–52, 1952–53
01 · Facts of the case
A cement company claimed concessional income-tax rates promised by the former Jind ruler under a 1938 agreement. After formation of PEPSU, its 1949–50 assessment and later Indian Income-tax Act assessments applied statutory rates instead.
Source: Primary report: SCR 731–736
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The new State’s ordinance expressly displaced prior laws and the concession. The merger covenant was an act of State and did not itself give the company enforceable municipal rights; no subsequent affirmation by the new State was proved. Prior-year assessment under the agreement concerned the saved pre-merger period.
Source: Primary report: SCR 737–749
03 · Judicial decision
Civil appeal and Article 32 petition dismissed with costs. No concession right subsisted when the Constitution commenced; Articles 295 and 363 questions were unnecessary.
Source: Primary report: SCR 749–751
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Revenue succeeded; the former ruler’s concessional tax rate could not displace the applicable statutory regime.
Source: Primary report: SCR 749–750
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
The ruling concerns a particular merger, explicit repeal and lack of recognition, not a blanket conclusion about all governmental promises. Bose J. concurred but reserved the distinct question of rights in immovable property, warning against using this case as precedent for that issue.
Source: Primary report: SCR 748–751
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 23-page Supreme Court Reports scan. Any adjoining report fragments remain in the unchanged original and are excluded from this analysis.
Statutory scope
Historical legislation expressly identified in this note. This is not a decision under the Income-tax Act, 1961 or the Income-tax Act, 2025. Verify enacted wording, commencement, transition and subsequent judicial treatment independently before modern reliance.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-23. Subsequent treatment and present-law applicability have not been comprehensively checked.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note uses AI assistance and a preserved full-primary review, with refreshed exact original-byte verification. Independent human review is not represented.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, applicable statutory version and subsequent treatment before reliance. AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding.